🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6gc8u5$mot$1@usenet50.supernews.com>, HiThere@outtatown.com
(HiThere) wrote:

> In article <gall-0604981414550001@usrts1m10.uwinnipeg.ca>,
gall@uwinnipeg.ca (Norman Gall) wrote:
> 
> >The SCC has no power to make any decision which is not already contained
> >in the law.  If you want to discriminate against homosexuals, find enough
> >people who also want this in enough provinces, and you can have you wish.
> >Until then , all of this is Sour Grapes.

> That is _exactly_ my point, Norm. Now that the issue has been removed
from the 
> area of individual choice, it can be legislated in either direction. 

But since it can *always* be legislated, it is better to have the
Constitution outline the freedoms we have and have the laws of the land be
constrained by it.

> Should what you describe above happen, those who support the Vreind decision 
> will have _nothing_ based on principle to say in rebuttal except now I _own_ 
> the sour grapes.

Right.  We'll have had ample time and opportunity to influence what
principles to which our laws must conform.  You seem to be advocating a
system of totalitarianism of some sort.

> Nice move.

It is the only one available. 

How *exactly* do you propose to prevent legislation one way or the other?
Are we to simply *not* legislate these things?  What prevents further
legislation from doing so anyway?

-- 
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates